On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 11:04:28AM +0200, Tim Dijkstra wrote: > On Tue, 5 Jun 2007 23:55:04 +0200 > Stefan Seyfried <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > (at least the debian package uses pretty much the same patch). > > At the moment we're using the following. When s2ram is installed, it
(I was maintly talking about the pm/functions bit, which is pretty much the same) > uses the quirks coming from hal. If hal didn't supply any it will use > s2ram's. It it isn't there either we currently try it anyway (which I'm > not to happy about...) Yes, i'll probably not do that "do it anyway", at least not without a big honking warning in the logfiles. I'll aplly your pm-action patches to my package so that, even if we are apparently not able to push this upstream for whatever reason, we only have one "fork" of pm-utils and not many of them :-) > One problem is that hal doesn't distinguish between 'not known' and 'do > not need quirks'. It ought too IMHO. Then we can really determine if it > is save to suspend or not. Hm, that's a real blocker for using of the HAL whitelist IMO. Expecting that "we never heard of this machine, so it'll probably work just fine" is pretty naive, given past experience. -- Stefan Seyfried QA / R&D Team Mobile Devices | "Any ideas, John?" SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Nürnberg | "Well, surrounding them's out." This footer brought to you by insane German lawmakers: SUSE Linux Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) _______________________________________________ Pm-utils mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-utils
